Treyes v.

Larlar
GR No. 232579 — Sept. 8, 2020
J. Caguioa
Topic: ?
Doctrine:
 When brothers and sisters of a deceased married sister survive with her widower, the latter shall
be entitled by law to ½ of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters to the other half.

Petitioner: Dr. Nixon Treyes

Respondents: Antonio Larlar, Rev. Fr., Emilio Larlar, Heddy Larlar et al.
Facts:

 May 1, 2008 – Rosie Treyes, wife of Nixon Treyes, died. Rosie did not bear any children and
died without a will. She also left behind 7 siblings (private respondents) Antonio, Emilio, Heddy,
Rene, Celeste, Judy and Yvonne.
 When Rosie died, she left behind 14 real estate properties which she owned with Treyes as their
conjugal properties.
 Treyes executed 2 Affidavits of Self-Adjudication dated Sept. 2, 2008 and May 19, 2011. Both
are registered with the RD.
o Treyes transferred the estate of Rosie unto himself, claiming he was the sole heir.
 Feb 13, 2012 - Private respondents allege that they sent a letter to Treyes requesting for a
conference to discuss the settlement of the estate of Rosie, however they claim they never heard
from Treyes.
o They wrote again, but was likewise ignored.
 Sometime during the latter part of 2012 – private respondents discovered that the TCTs
previously registered in the name of their sister and Treyes had become cancelled except 2 (Rizal
and Laguna properties). The TCTs were not in the name of TReyes.
 Respondents filed before the RTC San Carlos, Negros Occidental a complaint for the annulment
of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication, cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and
possession, partition and damages against Treyes and the Registers of Deeds involved.
o They claim Treyes fraudulently transferred to himself the properties and refused to
reconvey the shares of private respondents who are brothers and sisters of Rosie, and are
therefore legal heirs.
 Treyes alleges that his household helper Elizabeth Barientos was aggressively approached on Oct.
18, 2013 by 2 persons who demanded she receive a letter for Treyes. Barientos refused.
Apparently, the letter was the summons issued by the RTC pursuant to the complaint filed by the
respondents.
 Treyes then filed an Entry of Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss grounded on the lack of
JD over the person of Treyes.
o Treyes was, however, personally served with another summons s ordered by the RTC.
 June 20, 2014 - Treyes filed another MTD alleging:
o Improper venue
o Prescription
o Lack of JD over subject matter/not real party in interest
 RTC denied the MTD, but it held that RTC had no JD over the 3rd COA of partition.
 Treyes filed an Omnibus motion to reconsider the resolution. RTC denied the same.
 Treyes then filed before the CA a petition for certiorari asserting that there was GADALEJ in the
RTC’s denial of his second MTD.
  CA denied Treyes’ petition. The CA found that since the complaint primarily seeks to annul the
Affidavits of Self-Adjudication which partakes the nature of an ordinary civil action, RTC had JD
to hear and decide the complaint.
o Since the complaint was an ordinary civil action, the proper venue is San Carlos City,
Negros Occidental.
Issues + Held:

W/N the venue was improper? NO

 Treyes: the correct venue for the settlement of estate is the residence of the decedent at time of
death in LGC, Katipunan. Hence, the case should have been field in RTC QC. This is based on
Rule 73.
 Rule 73 refers exclusively to the special proceeding of settlement of estate, NOT to ordinary civil
actions. Invoking Rule 73 to allege improper venue is inconsistent with Treyes’ assertion that the
complaint is not a special proceeding but an ordinary civil action.
 Furthermore, such ground is deemed WAIVED in accordance with the Omnibus Motion Rule.
o According to Rule 9.1, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a MTD/Answer are
deemed waived except 1) lack of JD over SM 2) litis pendentia 3) RJ 4) prescription.
o ITC, the first MTD was solely on the ground of lack of JD over the person of Treyes.
Improper venue, a ground available then, was not alleged by Treyes.

W/N the action has prescribed? NO

 Treyes: According to Rule 74.4, an heir or other persons unduly deprived of lawful participation
in the estate may compel the settlement of the estate at any time within 2 years after the
settlement and distribution of an estate.
 The Court stressed that such Rule pertains to settlement of estates, a special proceeding; and NOT
an ordinary civil action.
 As held in Sapilo et al v. CA, Rule 74.4 barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an EJ
partition after the expiration of 2 years from such partition is applicable only
o To persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the EJ partition, and
o When the provisions of Rule 74.1 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that all the
persons/heirs of the decedents have taken in the EJ settlement/are represented by
themselves or through guardians
 Both requirements as laid down in Sapilo are absent here. Not all legal heirs participated in the EJ
settlement of Rosie’s estate as it was only Treyes who executed the affidavits. Hence, the
prescription pertaining to constructive trusts is inapplicable.
 Pursuant to Art. 1144 of the NCC, an action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens title in the name of the
trustee over the property.
o In Art. 1133, the action involving an obligation created by law must be brought within
10 years from the time the right of action accrues.
o In cases where fraud was alleged to be attendant in the trustee’s registration of the
property in h his own name, the prescriptive period of 10 years begins from the date of
the issuance of the OCT or TCT since the issuance operates as a constructive notice to the
whole world, the discovery of fraud being deemed to have taken place.
 Accordingly, respondents have until 2021 to file an action for reconveyance since the titles were
issued in Treyes’ name in 2011.
W/N the determination of the status of the legal heirs in a separate special proceeding is a
prerequisite to an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property instituted by
the legal heirs? NO
 Respondents instituted the action with the position that their status as heirs was already
established ipso jure without need of judicial confirmation. Instead, the complaint alleges that the
respondents’ rights, as siblings, must be enforced by annulling the affidavits and reconveying the
properties.
 Treyes cited the case of Heirs OF Magdaleno Ypon v. Ricaforte, among others to argue that
respondents have to first establish in a special proceeding their status as legal heirs before an
ordinary civil action can be instituted.
o Case of Ypon – petitioners filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance
with damages alleging that the decedent died intestate and childless but with the
existence of other legal heirs. Despite so, respondent allegedly executed an invalid
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and caused the transfer of titles to his name. The Court
ruled that petitioners first had to establish their status as heirs. Citing the case of Heirs of
Gabatan v. CA, the determination of who are the decedent’s lawful heirs must be made in
the proper special proceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of
ownership and/or possession.
 In Rule 1.3 of 1997 ROC, a civil action is where a party sues another for the
enforcement/protection of a right, or the prevention/redress of a wrong. A special
proceeding is a remedy where a party seeks to establish a status, right or a
particular fact. Clearly, declaration of heirship can be made in a special
proceeding.
 However, the court added that there are circumstances wherein a determination
of heirship in a special proceeding is NOT a precondition for the ordinary civil
action for the sake of practicality:
 When the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to
the TC and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of
heirship
 When a special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally
terminated and cannot be re-opened.

--- Court begins to diverge from its ruling

OCA V. SP
 In Pacific Banking Corp EE Org v. CA, the Court distinguished an ordinary action and a special
proceeding:
o Ordinary action – formal demand of a right by one against the other
 A party sues another for the enforcement of protection of a right which the party
claims he/she is entitled to such as where litigant seeks to recovery property from
another
 Any holding shall only be in relation to the COA be binding among the parties
therein.
o Special proceeding – petition for a declaration of status, right or fact
 Party merely seeks to have a right established In his favor
 Remedy where litigant seeks the appointment of a guardian for an insane
 Applying such distinction to ordinary civil actions for the cancellation of a deed/instrument
and reconveyance of property on the basis of relationship with the decedent, the plaintiff
does not really seek to establish his/her right as an heir because the law itself already
establishes that status.
 o What heshe aims to do is merely call for the nullification of a deed, instrument or
conveyance as an enforcement or protection of that right which he/she already
possesses by virtue of law.

ART. 777
 Based on Art. 777, the rights of succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent. Hence, the heir is deemed to have acquired ownership of his/her share at the eery
moment of death, not at the time of declaration of heirs/partition/distribution.
 Bonilla v. Barcena, the right of the heirs to the property of the deceased vests in them even before
judicial declaration of their being heirs in the estate proceedings.
 To illustrate, even in partition cases, even before property is judicially partitioned, the heirs are
deemed co-owners of the property. Thus, heirs are deemed real parties in interest without a
separate judicial determination of their kinship.

ART. 1001
 The Civil Code identifies relatives deemed compulsory and intestate heirs. They become heirs by
operation of law. Art. 1001 states that brothers and sisters/their children who survive with the
widow/widower shall be entitled to ½ of the inheritance, while the surviving spouse is entitled to
the other half.
o Hence, subject to the required proof, without any need of prior judicial determination,
the siblings of Rosie, by operation of law are entitled to ½ of the inheritance.
o The law itself already establishes their right.
o What the respondents are seeking is the enforcement and protection of the right granted
to them under Art. 1001 in relation to Art. 777 of the CC by asking for the nullification o
the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication that disregard and violate their right as intestate heirs.
 To require that a separate civil action be filed to determine heirship would run counter Art. 777 of
the CC.

APPLICATION
 In this case, the respondents were able to substantiate that they were siblings of Rosie and thus
intestate heirs by operation of law by attaching their respective birth certificates. Such status was
not even seriously refuted by Treyes.
 The rule is that the legal heirs of a decedent are the parties in interest to commence
ordinary civil actions arising out of their rights of succession, without the need for a
separate prior judicial declaration of their heirship, provided only that there is no pending
special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent’s estate.
o Such heirs can file an action To declare the nullity of a deed/instrument, recover property
or other action in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by succession
 Even if the Rules strictly provide for a separate judicial determination of heirship in a special
proceeding as a precondition in an OCA wherein heirship is already established by compulsory
succession or intestacy and is only sought to be enforced, the Rules must yield to the CC that
certain relatives attain their status as either compulsory/intestate heirs at the moment of the death
o the decedent.

Litam (basis of Ypon case)

 A special proceeding for the settlement of the intestate testate of Litam was filed by one of the
supposed sons of the latter i.e., Gregorio. It was alleged that the children of Rafael (Gregorio and
siblings) were born to a marriage in China in 1911 with Sia Khin (deceased).
o Rafael contracted another marriage with Marcosa in the PH.
 o In a special proceeding, Marcosa denied the marriage of Rafael to Khin and the alleged
filiation of Gregorio and his siblings. She prayed that her nephew Rivera be appointed as
administrator of Rafael’s estate.
o During the subsistence of the special proceeding, Gregorio and his siblings filed an
ordinary civil action complaint against Marcosa and Rivera in the same court hearing the
special proceeding praying for the delivery of the decedent’s properties to the
administrator of the estate of Rafael.
 CFI dismissed the civil case and declared the properties as exclusive properties of Marcosa. The
CFI also ruled tht Gregorio and his siblings are not the children of Litam..Litam’s sole heir is his
wife Marcosa.
 It must be noted that the SC did not call for the dismissal of CC because it involved the issue of
heirship in an ordinary civil action. The CFI did not hold that Gregorio and his siblings were
not real parties in interest and that the complaint failed to state a COA because the
complaint invoked the issue of heirship.
 In fact, the Court affirmed the CFI’s findings that Gregorio and siblings failed to prove their
alleged status as heirs. The SC did not affirm the dismissal of the ordinary civil action because it
touched on the issue of ownership, but because the petitioners failed to present sufficient
evidence to prove their heirship.
 There was no pronouncement that since Gregorio and his siblings did not obtain a declaration of
heirship in a special proceeding that they cannot be considered real parties in interest.
 In an ordinary civil action for reconveyance of property, the invocation of the status of the parties
as heirs in the complaint does not preclude the determination of the merits of said ordinary civil
action despite the pendency of the special proceeding for the settlement of the intestate estate of
Rafael. What was improper was RTC’s conclusive, definite and categorial declaration in the
ordinary civil action regarding Marcosa being the sole heir despite the pending special proceeding
tackling the contending issues of heirship posed by Gregorio and siblings.

Jurisprudential support for reversing the doctrine in Litam

 De Vera v. Galauran: De Vera as SS of the deceased and as guardian ad litem of 6 minor heirs,
filed an action for the annulment of a DOS of a registered parcel of land. He alleges they
mortgaged their property to defendant to secure a loan, but the latter illegally made them sign a
deed which turns out to be a pacto de retro sale. Defendant filed a demurrer alleging that the
plaintiffs have not been declared as legal heirs in a special proceeding. The demurrer was
sustained.
 The Court ruled that unless there is pending a special proceeding of the settlement of estate the
legal heirs may commence an ordinary action arising out of a right belonging to the ancestor
without a need for a separate judicial determination of their status as such.
 This was an En Banc decision which cannot be overturned by a ruling of the Division of the
court.
 In Cabuyao v. Caagbay, the SC noted that notwithstanding the absence of a previous declaration
of heirship inf avor of the plaintiff the right to assert a COA as an alleged heir has been
acknowledged in a number of subsequent cases.
 In Marabilles v. Sps. Quito (months before the Litam case): the court ruled that an heir may assert
his right to the property of a deceased and no previous judicial declaration of heirship is
necessary.
 Ypon, Ypantinchay, Protugal and Reyes are all decisions of the Court’s Divisions in so far as
they hold that a prior special proceeding for declaration of heirship is a prerequisite for the
assertion by an heir of his/her ownership rights acquired by succession in an ordinary civil action.
 These cannot overturn an En Banc holding such as De Vera, Cabuyao, Atun & Marabilles.
Ruling: PETITION DENIED. CA DECISION AFFIRMED.